83 Sermon Illustrations on Society

Sermon near Election Day. Romans 2:17-24

============

VALID VALUES

============

I. Values are Popular.

A. Politicians are focusing on it.

B. Has America lost its values?

II. Problem: Our Values Vary.

A. Cultural War?

B. In the Conflict of Values, Christians are losing.

III. Is the Bible all that clear on its values?

A. The Bible is a hard book.

B. Key values in the Bible.

1) Healthy living.

2) Sexual standards.

3) Society must be protected.

IV. Values alone are not enough. Romans 2:17-24

A. "Do as I say, not as I do."

B. Lived values carry the most weight.

C. Analyze your personal values.

Many Christians are coming to believe the Old Testament law has a place in our society and should shape government actions. There are a variety of opinions on how this should be done. Some see it as a dangerous trend.

Television producer Norman Lear, speaking at a joint convention of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, said that he parts company with civil libertarians who are “so fastidious” that they would purge any reference to God or religion from the public schools. He further pointed out that although the libertarians have been successful in most legal battles, he is troubled by the fact that many are blind to the spiritual emptiness in our culture. Lear credited the rank and file of the Religious Right for helping focus a spotlight on the spiritual yearning of our society.

In the book "Gaily the Troubadour," published in 1936, Arthur Guiterman wrote the following poem. Reading his observations, you wouldn't guess it was written nearly fifty years ago.

First dentistry was painless;

Then bicycles were chainless

And carriages were horseless

And many laws, enforceless.

Next, cookery was fireless,

Telegraphy was wireless,

Cigars were nicotineless

And coffee, caffeinless.

Soon oranges were seedless,

The putting green was weedless,

The college boy hatless,

the proper diet, fatless.

Now motor roads are dustless,

The latest steel is rustless,

Our tennis courts are sodless,

Our new religion, godless.

Great article on how Christians should get involved in changing society, and the different theological perspectives that guide our political stances. Many Americans are “orthodox”: they believe in a transcent God and moral absolutes and follow the Puritan tradition. Others are “progressivist” and follow the European Enlightenment tradition: morals are relative.

Dr. James Hunter, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, has written an aclaimed book called “Culture Wars.”

He says most people operate with a recipe knowledge of public affairs and of their faith. They can repeat the slogans but they cannot explain in any great depth why they take the positions they do.

When they find themselves in an argument over issues like homosexuality, or abortion, or the death penalty, they often articulate little more than their personal feelings, tastes, and preferences.

#2447

*

Politicians should preach morality.

New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman issued a warning to the Republican party against involvement in divisive “moral” issues. The Daily Record editorial applauded her, saying, “Preach tax cuts, not morality.” For “The Party of Lincoln” to announce that it had no interest whatsoever in the great moral questions of the day would be to renounce its legacy, its very foundation.

The Republican Party owes its existence to debate over the “moral issue” of slavery. It provided much of the impetus for purging the nation of the immoral legacy of Jim Crow. Every generation confronts its “moral” questions in the political context, whether those moral issues be slavery, equality of the sexes and races, gay rights, or what have you. To suggest the majority party in this state and country should take no position on these questions boggles the mind.

For all law is essentially a codification of society’s moral compass. If someone can show me a law which is objectively true, provable without reference to subjective standards of right and wrong, I will eat the page upon which it is printed. Is insider trading objectively “wrong”? It’s illegal, but that simply means that society, acting through government, has determined that such conduct violates accepted notions of fairness; it is “immoral” and, hence, made illegal.

One cannot objectively prove that discrimination against members of a particular group – race, sex, religion, – is “wrong.” Society accepts this as a given, as a moral guide, and legislates accordingly. Although one would, these days, be hard-pressed to discover a passionate advocate of enslaving blacks, that was not always so. Forests were leveled to produce the paper used for books defending the practice. The bloodiest single episode in American history had its roots in what was essentially a debate over the morality of a legal, if execrable practice.

Even well-intentioned, deeply religious or otherwise “good” people can be profoundly wrong on questions of morality. Their passion in favor of injustice hardly constitutes a reasonable basis for ending debate on the issue involved. Not that they don’t try to stifle debate; for decades, the slave power succeeded in cutting off debate on the subject in Congress.

In some recent polls, a majority of the American people felt that the country is experiencing, or has undergone, a great moral decline. Babies have babies, drug abuse, epidemic violence, and – yes – abortion, are but some to the great moral issues of our time. Does the Daily Record truly believe these issues should not be the subject of debate?

The governor suggest that some issues should not be, and what good conservative could disagree? Government certainly ought not be the ultimate arbiter of all areas of conduct. Some aspects of life are, and quite properly ought to be, none of anyone else’s **** business. The question, though, is where one draws the line. That is not always an easy question to answer.

Should government prohibit interracial marriages? It did, in many states, for quite some time. Should government be able to prohibit large families (i.e. more that one or two children)? I’ll wager you could find passionate advocates for such a position, even outside of China.

But even questions involving purely personal decisions – whom to marry, what career to pursue, with whom to have sex – are subject to societal regulation. One may not marry one’s sister, pursue a career as a burglar, or have sex with a 13-year-old without facing governmental sanction. And quite properly so.

Invective and ad hominem attacks – referring to one’s opponent’s as “yahoos” – accomplishes precisely nothing. Thankfully, the Governor does not engage in any such thing. Her laugh line – that politicians discussing morality is problematic – begs the question: if our elected representatives do not, who will?

#2875

*

In his sermon, “Power,” Howard Hendricks immediately gains a roomful of listeners with an introduction that reminds us our culture is a mess:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men,

Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again.

"What a perceptive parable of our generation. We live in a society in which everything nailed down is coming loose. Things that people said could not happen are happening. Thoughtful though unregenerate people are asking, ‘Where is the glue to reassemble the disintegration and disarray?’...

"Then we usually seek someone to blame. I saw an intriguing piece of graffiti in the city of Philadelphia some time ago. Scratched across the wall were these words: HUMPTY DUMPTY WAS PUSHED."

Hendricks goes on to show that only Christ has the power to straighten out our culture.

John Stott’s candid comments on justice, gender, and judgment.

John Stott joins together what most people tear asunder — or at least are incapable of holding together. He is a theologian of depth and breadth, yet he preaches and writes with clarity to a wide audience. He integrates social concerns into the mission of the church without ever minimizing his commitment to evangelism. Since he was ordained in 1945, he has ministered within a mainline denomination (the Church of England), while neither compromising his convictions nor diminishing his role as an evangelical thought leader. Engaged in parish ministry for 50 years at All Souls, Langham Place, in the center of London, where he now holds the title rector emeritus, his influence among evangelicals is of international proportions.

One of Stott’s enduring legacies is as the key framer of the historic Lausanne Covenant (1974), which serves almost as an evangelical apostles’ creed in many Third World settings. His faithful witness to the gospel in his writings and preaching has made him mentor and friend to a global community. The author of 34 books, Stott’s primer on the faith, “Basic Christianity,” has been translated into over 50 languages, and 22 more are in progress.

Speaking of “Authentic Christianity,” an anthology of his writings from the past 50 years (forthcoming from InterVarsity), evangelical historian Mark Noll serves up this accolade: “I consider John Stott the sanest, clearest, and most solidly biblical living writer on theological topics in the English language.” It is difficult to dispute this assessment.

More than his books, documents, or institutions, Stott’s most important legacy to the church has been his wisdom. Thoroughly biblical, disarmingly open, shrewdly discerning, Stott’s thought has helped guide the evangelical movement as it engaged social concerns, the charismatic movement, female clergy, homosexuality, and challenges to core doctrines. In preparation for Stott’s seventy-fifth birthday, Roy McCloughry, associate editor of the British Christian magazine “Third Way,” interviewed this evangelical Solomon on these and many other topics. The discussion can serve as a measure of where we are as a movement — and where we need to go.

YOUR MINISTRY STRETCHES BACK OVER 50 YEARS. HOW HAVE YOU CHANGED OVER THAT TIME?

I was very naive when I was ordained. I was more an activist than a thinker. I saw needs and wanted immediately to meet them, and this crowded out my studies.

It was in the early days of my ministry that I learned the necessity of stepping back, looking where I was going, and having a monthly quiet day to be drawn up into the mind of God and look ahead for the next six or twelve months. That was an enormous benefit to me.

YOU’VE COVERED AN IMMENSE RANGE OF ISSUES IN YOUR MINISTRY — THEOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, DOCTRINAL, AND CULTURAL. HAS THAT BEEN DUE TO CURIOSITY OR TO OBLIGATION AS A MINISTER?

A bit of both. Even before my conversion, I believe that God gave me a social conscience. When I was only 14 years old, I started a society at school whose major purpose was to give baths to tramps. I had a great concern for these homeless, dirty men.

We called it the ABC, because we thought they could understand that; having decided on the letters, we had to look around for words that would fit, and we came up with two: either “Always Be a Christian” or “the Association for the Benefit of the Community.” It only lasted a few years, and we never gave any baths to tramps; but we did some other good works until the treasurer loaned all the subscriptions to his brother, who spent everything.

My father was a doctor and a very high-minded, high-principled person, though not a Christian. He believed in a national health service before it was even dreamed about. My mother, too, was very concerned for the maids in the doctors’ homes who had nothing to do on their afternoons off. She started the Domestic Fellowship. So they both had a social conscience.

EVANGELISM AND SOCIAL ACTION

SOME PEOPLE MIGHT DIVIDE YOUR MINISTRY INTO TWO HALVES, ONE FOCUSED ON PIETISM AND ONE CONCERNED WITH THE VERY BROADEST SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ECONOMIC ASPIRATIONS OF SOCIETY. WHAT CAUSED THIS CHANGE?

I think it was reading the Bible. As I read and studied and meditated, my vision of God grew and I came to see the obvious things: that God is not just interested in religion but in the whole of life — in justice as well as justification.

I don’t see any dichotomy between the “pietistic” and social realms. To me, they’re two aspects of the same thing: a pursuit of the will of God. I have always been moved by the phrase “to hunger and thirst after righteousness”; righteousness covers both personal holiness and social justice.

SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SAY THAT YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE JUSTICE OF GOD, EXPRESSED IN SOCIAL TERMS, LED TO A WATERING DOWN OF YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE GOSPEL.

I think that’s rubbish, honestly. I remain committed to evangelism. I have had the privilege of leading more than 50 university missions all over the world, and they spanned a period of 25 years until I felt I was a little out of touch with the student generation and too old.

I can honestly say that my social concerns have not diminished my zeal for evangelism. If anything, it’s the other way round. What people could say is that I talk a lot about social action but don’t do much about it. And that is true, because my calling is to be a pastor. Although I disagree with polarization between these two, I’ve often said I do believe in specialization.

Acts 6 is the obvious biblical basis for this specialization of roles: the apostles were not willing to be distracted from the ministry of the Word and prayer. In fact, the seven were appointed to handle the care of the widows. Both those works are called diakonia, “ministry”; both required Spirit-filled people to exercise them. Both were necessary, but one was social, the other pastoral.

DON’T SOME PEOPLE FEAR THAT RENEWED EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL CONCERN MIGHT MUFFLE THE CALL TO EVANGELISM?

There are a number of mission leaders, particularly Americans, who are frightened that we want missionaries to give themselves to social-political work, which is none of their business and would distract them from their primary role in evangelism. I have no wish for missionaries to change their role. There is a real need for evangelists who are not engaged in holistic mission because their calling is evangelism. I don’t criticize Billy Graham because he simply preaches the gospel and doesn’t engage in social-political work — well, he does a bit, but not much — any more than we don’t criticize the Good Samaritan for not preaching the gospel to the man assaulted by robbers.

It’s partly our existential situation that determines what we concentrate on, partly our vocation. Everybody cannot do everything, as I keep saying to myself.

IN “ISSUES FACING CHRISTIANS TODAY” (1984), YOU SAY: “EVANGELISM IS THE MAJOR INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL CHANGE. FOR THE GOSPEL CHANGES PEOPLE, AND CHANGED PEOPLE CAN CHANGE SOCIETY.” ISN’T THAT REALLY A RUGGEDLY INDIVIDUALISTIC PICTURE OF SOCIAL CHANGE?

I think that quote is from where I list four or five instruments for social change. I put evangelism first because Christian social responsibility depends on socially responsible Christians, and they are the fruit of evangelism.

Having said that, I would also want to make the complementary point that Christians are not the only people who have benefited or reformed society. We evangelicals do have a very naive view. Take marriage: people say, “They have got to be converted and then they’ll have a good marriage.” But there are Christians who don’t have good marriages, and there are plenty of excellent marriages among people who are not Christians. Morality and social conscience are not limited to Christian people.

WHY IS THE CHURCH SO OFTEN THE LAST TO JOIN A PROTEST MOVEMENT? THE CHURCH IN TIME MIGHT TAKE THE LEAD; AND IT MAY SPEAK WITH THE GREATEST INTEGRITY AGAINST JINGOISM OR APARTHEID OR NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR THE ABUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT THESE MOVEMENTS ARE OFTEN STARTED BY OTHERS.

Well, that has not always been true. The slave trade is a good example and Shaftesbury’s reforms in relation to mental illness. Nevertheless, by and large what you say is true. Why? First, because we’re busy; we’re busy evangelizing and doing other things, mostly in the church. We don’t always demand our liberty from the church in order to be active in the world.

Second, we have such a strong doctrine of fellowship and are so clear about our responsibility not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers that we have seldom learned that we can be “cobelligerents,” to use Francis Schaeffer’s well-known term, even if we are not in active spiritual fellowship with one another.

SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SAY THAT THE CHURCH IS SIMPLY VERY CONSERVATIVE. IT ONLY JOINS THESE MOVEMENTS FOR CHANGE UNDER PRESSURE FROM SECULAR FORCES IN SOCIETY.

I wish it were always Christians who took the initiative in seeking needed social change. But I am still thankful when others take the initiative and Christians follow, even under secular pressure.

We must not set secular fashion and the Holy Spirit over against each other, as being always and inevitably incompatible. Public opinion isn’t always wrong. What is wrong is to bow down before it uncritically, like reeds shaken by the wind. Why should the Holy Spirit not sometimes use public opinion to bring God’s people into line? The Spirit seems to have done so on a number of occasions in the debate between science and faith.

WHAT IS THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR CHRISTIAN SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT TODAY? IS IT ENOUGH TO SPEAK OF BEING “SALT AND LIGHT”?

Start with the nature of God. God is interested in and concerned about more than religion: God is the Lord of creation and the covenant. God is the lover of justice, one who protects and champions the oppressed: this is God’s nature. If this is the kind of God we have, then clearly God’s people have got to be the same.

Second, there is the doctrine of human beings, of male and female made in the image of God — the unique dignity and worth of human beings. William Temple said, “My worth is what I am worth to God, and that is a marvelous great deal, because Christ died for me.” And I would say that the ministry of Jesus in life and death exhibits the enormous value of human beings.

Then, I would want to back up this biblical theme with examples from history. Take Mother Teresa, for example, who sees a woman on the pavement of Calcutta with awful sores infested by live maggots. Mother Teresa kisses this woman and picks her up. She sees an intrinsic value in her.

That, surely, is what has motivated people. That is why the word humanization, which was first adopted in the World Council of Churches, is something we evangelicals ought to have taken up. Anything that dehumanizes human beings should be an outrage to us, because God has made them in his image. The whole concept of the rehumanization of human beings, and the deliverance of human beings from anything that dehumanizes, ought to inspire people, and has inspired people.

MAINLINE CHURCHES

DO YOU STILL THINK THE ANGLICAN CHURCH MAKES A GOOD HOME FOR EVANGELICALISM?

Yes, I think it’s a good boat to fish from, but that’s not the reason I’m a member of it.

There are three options for evangelicals in mainline denominations. The two extremes are to get out or cave in. The third is to stay in without giving in. The extremes are actually the easy options. Anybody can cave in: that’s the way of the coward, the way of the feeble mind. To cave in is to stay in but to fail to hold on to your distinctive evangelicalism. You just compromise.

To get out is to say, “I can’t bear this constant argument and controversy any longer.” That also is an easy option. I know people have done it and suffered because they have given up a secure job and salary; but it’s an easy option psychologically.

The difficult thing is to stay and refuse to give in, because then you’re always in tension with people with whom you don’t altogether agree, and that is painful.

BUT NO CHRISTIAN CAN GIVE UNQUALIFIED ALLEGIANCE TO ANY INSTITUTION. WHAT, FOR YOU, WOULD BE THE SIGNALS THAT IT IS TIME TO LEAVE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

I’ve always felt that it’s unwise to publish a list of criteria in advance. Nevertheless, I’m quite happy to talk about them. I think one’s final decision to leave would be an exceedingly painful one, a situation that I cannot envisage at the moment.

I would take refuge in the teaching of the New Testament, where the apostles seem to distinguish between major and minor errors. The major doctrinal errors concern the person and work of Christ. It’s clear in 1 John that anyone who denies the divine-human person of Jesus is anti-Christ. So, if the church were officially to deny the Incarnation, it would be an apostate church and one would have to leave.

Then, there’s the work of Christ. In Galatians, if anybody denies the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone, that is anathema: Paul calls down the judgment of God upon that person.

On the major ethical issues: the best example is the incestuous offender in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul called on the church to excommunicate him. If you want me to stick my neck out, I think I would say that if the church were officially to approve homosexual partnerships as a legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage, this so far diverges from biblical sexual ethics that I would find it exceedingly difficult to stay. I might want to stay on and fight for a few more years, but if they persisted, I would have to leave.

EVANGELICAL FRAGMENTATION

IT SEEMS THAT EVANGELICALISM HAS FRAGMENTED INTO DIFFERENT GROUPS, WITH DIFFERENT HEROES, PUBLISHERS, AND CULTURES. HOW SHOULD WE THINK OF OURSELVES NOW?

I don’t mind plurality as long as it goes hand-in-hand with unity. But I’ve given a great deal of my life to the development and preservation of unity within the evangelical constituency. I have never believed that our differences have been great enough to warrant fragmentation. I don’t mind people founding their own societies and going after their own thing — again, it’s an example of specialization — provided they still recognize that we belong to one another.

(continued in #3722)

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine — ctcurrmrj6T124a612g

The health of America's families has a direct impact on the level of violent crime. Social scientists, criminologists, and many other observers at long last are coming to recognize the connection between the breakdown of families and various social problems that have plagued American society. It is now a widely accepted premise that children born into single-parent families are much more likely than children born into intact families to fall into poverty and welfare dependency. The link with crime is just as strong.

The government tends to believe crime is caused by material conditions such as poverty. However, after spending $3 trillion since 1965 (welfare has increased 800% over that time in real spending) the number of major felonies per capita today is roughly three times the rate prior to 1960. Senator Phil Gramm rightly observes, "If social spending stopped crime, America would be the safest country in the world." History defies the assumption that deteriorating economic circumstances breed crime and that improving conditions

reduce it. America's crime rate actually rose during the long period of real economic growth in the early 20th century. As the Great Depression set in and incomes dropped, the crime rate also dropped. It rose again between 1965 and 1974 when incomes rose.

Official Washington also believes that race is the second most important cause of crime. The large disparity in crime rates between whites and blacks is often cited as proof. However, a closer look at the data shows that the real variable is not race but family structure. Illegitimacy, not race, is the key factor. It is the absence of marriage and the failure to form and maintain intact families that explains the incidence of crime among whites as well as blacks.

The Life of the Future Violent Criminal.

Stage One: Neglect by parents and abandonment of child in early home life.

Stage Two: The embryonic gang becomes a place for him to belong.

Stage Three: He joins a delinquent gang.

Stage Four: He commits violent crime and the full-fledged criminal gang emerges.

Stage Five: A new child - and a new generation of criminals - is born.

The impact of violent crime.

Violence begets violence. The future violent criminal is likely to have witnessed numerous conflicts between his parents. Fewer than 5 percent of all criminals account for 50 percent of all criminal convictions. Violence is increasing: between 1989 and 1990, the homicide rate in Boston increased by over 40 percent; in Denver by 29%; in Chicago, Dallas, and New Orleans by more than 20%; in Los Angeles by 16%; in New York by 11 percent.

Rebuilding stable families and communities.

Parents should encourage the moral development of their children - moral development that is best accomplished within the context of religious belief and practice.

Four simple principles must be affirmed:

1. Marriage is vital.

2. Parents must love and nurture their children in spiritual as well as physical ways.

3. Children must be taught how to relate to and empathize with others.

4. The backbone of strong neighborhoods and communities is friendship and cooperation among families.

[see #3454]

How warfare rhetoric is hurting the work of the church.

Talk of war is everywhere. It exploded into popular discourse when sociologist James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia published “Culture Wars,” his book-length analysis of our nation’s moral impasse. In his follow-up book, “Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America’s Culture War,” Hunter argues that the conflict over values is so severe that our very democracy may be in jeopardy.

In his provocative book “Beyond Culture Wars: Is America a Mission Field or Battlefield?” Reformed theologian Michael Horton uses the same language of battle and claims the war has been fought and lost. Horton cites Jewish scholar Irving Kristol’s doleful lament: “In his [1992 Republican] convention speech, Pat Buchanan referred to the ‘culture wars..’ I regret to inform him that those wars are over, and the Left has won. … The Left today completely dominates the educational establishment, the entertainment industry, the universities, the media… There is no point in trying to inject ‘family values’ into these institutions. They will debase and corrupt the very ideal while pretending to celebrate it.”

Evangelical leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family also uses the powerful metaphor of war, writing urgently about “the ongoing civil war of values.” His newsletters rehearsing various battles of this “civil war” mobilize thousands. Other ministries and, indeed, Christianity Today authors comment on both victories and losses in this Herculean struggle.

Undoubtedly, the metaphor of “culture war” reflects the reality of conflict. Today Christians swim against a tide of sub-Christian behavior: drugs, distorted sex, greed, violence, abortion, abuse, broken families, children without fathers. Key institutions–the media, universities and schools, and government agencies–sometimes seem less concerned to change such behavior than to defend it from “Puritanism.” Christians who want to reverse destructive behavior may find themselves at odds with a culture that enables, encourages, or even celebrates it under the rubrics of personal expression and individual rights.

Activist Christians may also encounter anti-Christian attitudes–a spirit of condescension if not outright hostility. ABC News religion commentator Peggy Wehmeyer, herself an evangelical, observed in an interview in TV Guide: “The elite in this country–the courts, education, media, the arts–tend to view people who take their faith very seriously … with a smug, arrogant attitude.” On National Public Radio, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz noted that no evangelical Christian could be appointed as a faculty member at Harvard Law School. He lamented the fact that pluralism is often a code word for “ideologically correct.”

And yet, I believe Christians should be wary of adopting uncritically the friend-or-foe, either-or rhetoric of war. Such a metaphor is problematic for several reasons.

THE DANGERS OF WAR TALK

First, culture-war rhetoric can be self-fulfilling prophecy, exacerbating the very conflicts it seeks merely to describe. Repeated recourse to the language of war makes it harder to love our enemies–and it is already hard to do so–because it inflames angry feelings.

Second, culture-war rhetoric leads us to distort others’ positions, to see enmity in place of mere disagreement. It leaves no room for nuanced positions, or for middle ground.

Third, culture-war rhetoric distorts our own position, too–making our message seem mainly to be angry criticism when it ought to be mainly the reconciling gospel of Jesus Christ.

Fourth, culture-war rhetoric plays into the hands of extremists on the Left, who would like to convince Americans that “the Religious Right” seeks to impose a theocratic state on them.

Fifth, culture-war rhetoric tends to create division among Christians, even evangelical Christians–for in war, there is no room for question or hesitation, and those who are slow to march in lockstep seem to be cowards or traitors.

These concerns apply to all orthodox believers. Culture-war rhetoric may hurt our purposes–and hurt us.

I regret the haunting title of Hunter’s recent book: “Before the Shooting Begins.” Such rhetoric may sell books. But such rhetoric does little to foster an ambiance in which those Americans who are alienated from each other can seek reconciliation. Indeed, it reinforces the mindset of people like those extremists who laud the killing of abortion doctors and staff.

The vast majority of other Americans are not hostile toward evangelical Christians and are not ready to shoot anybody. We would be more accurate to portray the bulk of the American public not as belonging to two giant phalanxes of the Right and Left engaged in mortal combat, but as religious centrists, remaining to varying degrees committed to Judeo-Christian values and to First Amendment guarantees regarding freedom of religion. There are theaters of cultural warfare, but millions of Americans are not self-consciously enlisted soldiers in them.

The recently released study of American sexuality, for example, “The Social Organization of Sexuality,” paints a more conservative portrait of Americans’ sexuality than we would suppose, given the lurid presentation often proffered by the television, film, and print media. Similarly, a recent Roper poll sponsored by Focus on the Family uncovered a spectrum of beliefs regarding abortion, not the monolithic divisions associated with a culture-war model. A majority of Americans lean toward the pro-life position, with 52 percent of men and 60 percent of women fitting this description. In their book “The People’s Religion: American Faith in the 90’s,” George Gallup, Jr., and Jim Castelli note the surprising finding that the formal beliefs of Americans have changed relatively little since the 1940s: “In fact, the nation in some respects has remained remarkably orthodox–even fundamentalist–in its belief.”

The imagery of a spectrum must be counterbalanced with Augustine’s famous descriptions of the City of God and the City of Man. Evangelical Christians do believe that only some follow Christ and the Spirit; these disciples are distinguished from others who follow the Evil One and the flesh (see also Jesus’ parables in Matthew 13). Moreover, hard-fought spiritual warfare is taking place on this planet and right in this country. Nor should we run away from the biblical passages that compare the Christian life to soldiering and fighting the good fight and contending for the faith.

But Augustine reminds us that, at the societal level, it is preferable if the citizens of the City of God and the City of Man live at peace on earth. The imagery of a spectrum encourages our seeking after civic peace, disdaining rhetoric that promotes unnecessary explosive confrontations.

Perhaps the spectrum might be envisioned in this way. On the Far Right are those Americans who want to impose Christian values by law on their fellow citizens and who appear willing to sacrifice constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of religion. The culture-war motif serves them well as a rationale for enlisting and inspiring partisans.

On the Far Left is a relatively small but powerful group of atheistic elites in education, government, law, and the media who want to drive anything but atheism from the public square. Their tactic is to woo the huge, confused middle by characterizing conservative Christian political activists as extremists who want to take away the civil rights of other Americans.

The culture-war motif also serves their cause beautifully. With their oversized media megaphones, they can try to persuade Americans in the middle that perfidious Christian extremists (read fundamentalists or the “Religious Right”) are the nation’s foes. And whenever a Christian leader speaks about a desire to recreate a “Christian America,” or a fringe extremist from the Far Right commits murder, he or she gives ammunition to those who would want to frighten the religious middle.

It would be wrong to confuse those in the muddled middle with the left-wing extremists. What many Americans in the middle are concerned about is the imposition of moral teachings by law. They cannot justify this approach with their perception of the Constitution’s guarantees regarding separation of church and state. For example, Hunter has found that some Americans oppose abortion but feel their personal beliefs should not be forced upon others. One woman told Hunter’s researchers, “I would say my views are true for me, but I can’t put that on someone else. I just can’t force my truths on other people.” Those of us who oppose abortion and believe the law should explicitly protect unborn children may sometimes misinterpret our neighbors’ concern as hostility toward us or our view of the morality of abortion. In fact, they may agree with us about the horror of abortion but come to a different conclusion when they wrestle with the issue of how its eradication should take place. They often view religion and morality as “private,” having no place in public life. It does not necessarily help, in persuading such people, to cast them in the role of “enemy.”

In an address to the National Association of Evangelicals, NAE president Don Argue declared: “The so-called Religious Right has lost its right to be heard by a large segment of the general public.” He continued: “Our positions regarding abortion and homosexuality are very clear, but we need balanced, articulate, biblical leadership” in order to avoid alienating “the very people we are trying to lead.” He lamented the fact that some evangelicals “have violated Jesus’ command to love their enemies and do good to those who persecute them.”

I would argue that the very use of “culture wars” rhetoric tends to reinforce that attitude. It pushes people into opposite camps instead of encouraging them to seek areas of common ground. It blinds us to our own shortcomings by keeping our focus on the wounds inflicted by our “enemies” rather than on addressing our own failings. Culture-war rhetoric can even stir misunderstandings within the evangelical community itself by creating a climate in which anyone who speaks up for civility can be suspected of inadequate courage in fighting for “Christian values.”

The defining issue for faithful Christian discipleship at the end of the twentieth century is the taxing intersection between church and society. Theological differences notwithstanding, Protestants from mainline academics in the South to evangelical parish ministers in the Northeast are placing the issue on the table, challenging the faithful to rethink critical assumptions about the relationship of the Christian faith to American society with all the force that accompanied the modernist-fundamentalist controversy decades ago.

With IN GOOD COMPANY and WHERE RESIDENT ALIENS LIVE, Hauerwas and Willimon extend the argument of their controversial 1989 bestseller, RESIDENT ALIENS, which encouraged mainliners to acknowledge the radically “sectarian” demands of their faith. “The very idea that Christians can be at home, indeed can create a home, in this world is a mistake,” they write.

Hauerwas vigorously defends his efforts to reverse the paradigm by which Christians have traditionally viewed both church and society. To him, the church is less a pillar of society than a “polis” [city] in its own right, reprogramming believers from the destructive patterns and practices (not so much the thinking) of the world. “What we Christians have lost,” he laments, is the sense of “just how radical our practices are, since they are meant to free us from the lies so characteristic of the world.”

The “lies” Hauerwas is talking about include the Western political tradition in general and the American experiment in particular, with its notions of self-determination and religious freedom, idols that have weaned believers from serious discipleship. While his analysis is probing, Hauerwas’s apparent hostility to things American may not reflect a healthy understanding of nature and grace. Surely, America represents many hazardous idols, but is she really the anti-Christ Hauerwas claims? Perhaps Hauerwas’s sourness on the United States helps explain his attraction to Catholicism and the Mennonites, traditions that have historically not felt at ease across the Fruited Plain.

Hauerwas’s disdain for Western society leads to a stinging critique of the Reformation:

The association of the Reformation with presumptions of justification by faith through grace as a center of the Gospel was a profound mistake. That emphasis, perhaps unwittingly, underwrote essentially individualistic accounts of salvation that combined with liberal political theory to produce an outrageously accommodated church.

While his emphasis on a more corporate understanding of salvation is a welcome antidote to American individualism, Hauerwas’s own “picking and choosing parts of traditions I like without having to bear the burdens of parts ... I do not like” suggests that he has not escaped the same conundrum Frank Schaeffer fell into when embracing Eastern Orthodoxy: presuming by sheer willpower to adopt a tradition that by nature adopts its own members, not vice versa.

In WHERE RESIDENT ALIENS LIVE, Hauerwas teams up with his sidekick William Willimon for a lighter, more popular sequel to RESIDENT ALIENS, responding to the key objection the 1989 book generated: “Where is this church of which you speak?” Willimon and Hauerwas say their church is discernible “if we take the trouble to look for it in the right places.” So they offer a few vignettes of a faithful congregation here and a Christian warrior there, but spend most of their time negotiating misperceptions. “We are not asking Christians to withdraw from the world but rather to recognize we are surrounded.”

Hauerwas and Willimon have no patience for the classic Lutheran paradigm of church and state as complementary spheres; the church is by nature a political entity in conflict with the state. The model they emulate is the African-American church in South Carolina before and during the civil-rights movement: “Here was a church that knew that it lived as strangers in a strange land, that had no illusions about the wider culture, that knew that it needed to gather on Sunday and protect its children.”

COPYRIGHT(C) 1997 BY CHRISTIANITY TODAY, INC/CHRISTIANITY TODAY MAGAZINE.

JANUARY 6, 1997 VOL. 41, NO. 1, PAGE 50

Sermon on political influence and involvement. Jeremiah 18:1-10

=======================

HAVING FAITH IN AMERICA

=======================

I. Is America a Christian nation?

II. Going against the tide. #3453

A. A flood of sub-Christian behavior.

B. Condescension and hostility.

C. Extremism.

III. How do you bring about real change?

A. The political illusion.

B. The spiritual solution.

C. Where do you stand?

IV. Public opinion and morality can be changed.

A. Christian social movements.

B. What is happening today.

V. Stand up and be counted.

A. Christians cannot "take back America."

B. Be a Christian where you are.

C. Think like a Christian.

D. Speak out on the hard issues.

E. Do it in love.

VI. One can make a difference.

#4212

*

ATTITUDES OF POST-MODERN TIMES.

1] There are no absolutes.

* 72% of those between 18-25 do not believe absolutes exist.

* 53% of evangelical Christians do not believe absolutes exist.

2] Loss of moral criteria.

What we have today is not only immoral behavior, but a loss of

moral criteria.

3] You must be tolerant.

* The only absolute truth is you must be tolerant.

* However, people are very intolerant of those who are not tolerant.

4] Objection to Christianity is not, "Is it true?," but "Why do Christians

believe they have the only truth?"

5] Truth is not the issue. The issue is power.

* The goal in life for a postmodernist is to win.

* Playing fair is not a value.

6] If there are no absolutes, then truth is relative, there can be no

stability, no meaning in life.

7] Postmodernists stress style over substance.

* The surface is more significant than the interior.

* They lack a commitment to the inner life.

8] According to postmodernists, we are all hypocrites, acting various

parts and following various scripts without any real identity

of our own. They are consumed with surface appearances.

Image is everything.

9] The tendency in the postmodern age is to evaluate everything in terms

of its entertainment value.

* Church shopping used to be, "What church has the best teaching?"

* Now church shopping is, "What church has the best worship?"

10] Postmodernism promotes the development of tribal groups.

They are terribly divided over race, money, abortion, homosexuality,

and gender roles to name a few.

* Has the church become a "tribal group," merely a segment of society

rather than an integral part of culture?

* Christians in the USA are building a parallel culture with our own

bookstores, contemporary music, TV networks, and our own

schools.

* Christians have withdrawn from the greater culture, and now the

culture is excluding us from them.

* The Church in the USA is becoming a ghetto.

11] The culture is emphasizing multiculturalism, while the church maintains

its monocultural local congregations.

* The valid life to a postmodernist is a diverse experience.

12] The postmodernist believes in what they like.

Religion is then seen as a preference, a choice.

We believe what we want to believe.

13] The difference is that today, unlike any other time in history, many

people are unwilling to believe what they do not enjoy.

14] The postmodernist 'sins' include "being judgmental," "being

narrowminded," "thinking that you have the only truth," and "trying

to enforce your values on anyone else."

#4257

*

INTOLERANCE IS A BEAUTIFUL THING

The prophet Elijah....intoleration of Jezebel

The Apostle Paul....intolerant of Witchcraft Books

Thomas Paine....intolerant of King George III

George Washington....intolerant of Enemy Troops

Frederick Douglass....intolerant of Slavery

Susan B. Anthony....intolerant of only men voting

Amy Carmichael....intolerant of child prostitution

Dietrich Bonhoeffer....intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism

Winston Churchill....intolerant of Adolph Hitler

Martin Luther King....intolerant of Segregation

Lech Walesa (and Ronald Reagan)....intolerant of Communism

Intolerance is a beautiful thing. But we must always know in what area God has called for humans to be tolerant or to be intolerant.

The modern movement toward tolerance of all things denies the common ense that many things are illegal and simply bad for mankind.

But this modern movement also denies that God has set up certain standards which, when taught in love (Eph. 4:15), will always lead to the betterment of mankind! Jesus is intolerant of those who hurt His family (2 Th. 1:6-12).

Intolerance for evil is always a beautiful thing! Do you have the courage to be beautiful? Think it through!

--Englewood Examiner, CO

Does anyone believe that if Americans elected the right person as president that we would really be on our way to addressing the nation's fundamental problems?

Does anyone believe that if Americans filled Congress with the best available candidates AND elected a righteous president that the country would be out of danger from further decay?

The sad truth is that America's most pressing problems are well beyond the scope and ability of our political class to solve.

Why is that? Well, let's take a look at what some of those problems are:

* the breakdown of the institutions of marriage and family;

* the inability for many to distinguish between right and wrong;

* the consolidation of power in Washington and in the executive branch;

* the breakdown in the rule of law;

* the usurpation of power by unaccountable supra-national agencies;

* infringements on personal freedoms

* increasing vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction;

What do these and other problems our nation is facing have in common?

While government has contributed to their creation and fueled these crises, they all have spiritual and cultural dimensions, too. They have something else in common, as well. They were not created overnight and they will not be fixed overnight. The problems we're facing in America today -- and, in fact, the problems faced by others around the world -- did not occur by accident or by chance. They are actually the result of real planning, real plotting, real scheming.

Back in the early 1900s, an Italian Communist by the name of Antonio Gramsci came up with an idea for achieving the goals of socialism without firing a shot. He suggested that fellow travelers should embark on a long march through the cultural institutions -- subverting, changing their missions, taking them over. He believed that if socialist ideas permeated the most influential non-political aspects of society -- education, the philanthropies, the entertainment industry, the press -- that political power would literally fall into the laps of those who chose such a path.

Gramsci, whose work has been translated into dozens of languages, wrote that the most important task in this long-term plan for winning the hearts and minds of the people was to attack the notion that there is a sovereign God who endows His creatures with certain inalienable rights and who establishes absolute rules about right and wrong.

Can anyone doubt that the current state of the world is very much the legacy of Gramsci and others who shared his ideas? Can anyone doubt that the culture is the Ho Chi Minh trail to political power?

But, to be honest, the world's problems cannot be totally laid at the feet of Gramsci and his socialist disciples. There's much more at work here -- darker forces, invisible forces, sinister forces, diabolical forces. What we're seeing in America today, is real-world evidence of the spiritual warfare described in the Bible -- the unseen powers and principalities referred to by Paul in Ephesians 6:12. The world is a battleground in a universal struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil.

For those of us who understand Paul, believe what he wrote and believe in the God whom He served, there is reason for great optimism. We know how all this is going to work out. We've read the end of the book.

Jesus is going to come back and straighten out this mess. For those who know Him and don't live to see that day, they will live with Him for eternity in paradise. You can't get a much better ending than that.

I can certainly understand why those who don't believe are so gloomy as they look out at the deterioration of the world around them. But why are those of us who do believe so pessimistic?

We, too, are gloomy because we want to do something now. We want to right injustice. We want to protect our kids from harm. We know we have a responsibility to do something, and it's frustrating as we watch the world fall apart around us.

I do believe conditions are going to worsen before they get better. Not all Christians agree. I think America is headed for much tougher times -- perhaps as a judgment for so much sin and immorality amid such blessings.

How do we fight back in the spiritual realm? As the Bible tells us, we put on the "whole armor of God" (Ephesians 6:11, 6:13). We do that by immersing ourselves in His word. We pray unceasingly. We ask God's blessing and mercy on us.

In other words, we wage spiritual warfare by practicing combat faith. Combat is not a 9-to-5 job. It's not a hobby. It's a way of life, a mindset, an attitude. To do it effectively, you have to be tough and serious about it. It requires training and discipline.

But the good news is that we have already won the war. The outcome is assured. All we must do is endure, accept our responsibilities, do our duty, be good soldiers.

Just as spiritual war requires spiritual combat, cultural war requires cultural combat.

It's our duty then, those of us who believe in God and the freedom and responsibility He represents, to begin a process of what I call "reverse Gramsciism." It's time to begin another long march through the cultural institutions.

It's not a time for timidity or compromise. It's not a time for defensiveness and conciliation. It's time to take the offensive in this struggle.

What do I mean by that? I have a revelation for some of you who read this column. I'm not a "conservative." I'm not a conservative because I see precious little left in this world worth conserving. Conservatives will never make good cultural warriors because they are always on the defensive -- trying to conserve or preserve something.

But when an apple turns rotten, there's no sense in trying to preserve it. You just throw it out.

Was Jesus a conservative? No, he was not. He was radical. He was revolutionary. He came to Earth to overthrow the world order -- and He did. For those of us who follow Him, that remains our mission today. And we better realize it.

Was George Washington a conservative? No. He was a revolutionary who practiced combat faith.

Today, those who stand for freedom, justice, the rule of law and the principles of the Bible are not part of "the establishment." We're the rebels. By the world's standards, we're the renegades. We need to be proud of that and stop trying to preserve a rotten apple.

What is the rotten apple? You can see it in the government schools that dumb down American kids. You can see it in the universities that pervert the concepts of knowledge and wisdom. You can see it in the federalization and militarization of law enforcement. You can see it in the proliferation of non-constitutional government. You can see it in the real "trickle-down economics" of confiscatory taxes. You can see it in the unaccountable authorities which give us global treaties. You can see it in the relentless attacks on marriage and the family. You can see it in euthanasia, population control and the phony "right" to abortion on demand. You can see it in the surrender of our national security.

It's all got to go. But how? Politics as usual will never get us there.

The cultural institutions have paved the road to this destruction of true freedom. We must make a U-turn on that road and take those institutions back. Electing the best politicians will never be enough. To turn this country around, freedom-loving revolutionaries must reclaim Hollywood, the foundations, the schools, academia and, of course, the press.

The reason we must take back the press and all the other cultural institutions that have betrayed the American Dream is because they play such a big role in educating -- or miseducating -- the public.

The Founding Fathers knew that even the best designed government wouldn't work if the people were not righteous, moral and God-fearing -- if they didn't love liberty and cherish it.

To practice self-government again, we must have a people capable of self-government. Today, our population has been dumbed-down by government schools, television, movies and the sad state of the press establishment that we are getting the kind of government we deserve. We're moving toward tyranny.

I believe God has opened the door to us -- given us a chance to do our duty -- with the advent of the New Media. We have the opportunity to create new institutions that can challenge CNN, AP, Fox, Viacom, Disney, Universal -- perhaps even the government schools and the factories of "higher education" that serve only the status quo.

The battlefield of ideas is being leveled.

But only when we create some serious competition within those powerful cultural institutions and begin taking them back with this potent new weapon of mass liberation, then and only then, will it really matter which of the major presidential candidates gets elected and which party controls Congress. Only then are we as nation likely to make the political choices that will make a difference. Only then will we be capable -- and worthy -- of self-government again.

_________________________________

A daily radio broadcast adaptation of Joseph Farah's commentaries can be heard at http://www.ktkz.com/

According to conservative pundits, the culture war is over -- and conservatives lost.

Well, someone forgot to tell the American Civil Liberties Union.

The other day I received a letter from Ira Glasser, the ACLU's executive director. Now, why the ACLU had targeted me as a potential supporter and donor is a mystery. But I'm glad they sent me the letter, because I learned a lot from it. It suggests that the culture war is far from over, and that conservatives just might be winning, after all.

The tone of the ACLU letter was urgent, almost hysterical. Recipients were warned about "a very loud and dangerous bunch" who have managed to get themselves "entrenched in the corridors of power." Really?

If you guessed that this "bunch" is conservative Christians, go to the head of the class.

It appears the ACLU has figured out what Christian activists are really up to. You may have thought that we push certain political views because we believe they are the right ones, and that implementing them will be good for our society.

But you would be wrong. According to Glasser, what we're really after is to "remake our country ... in the image" of a "deceitful brand of morality" that we've "fabricated."

In the eyes of the ACLU, Christians are so powerful that we can bend the laws of physics to suit our purposes. Really! We're attempting to reverse the flow of time and return our country to the 1950s, notwithstanding Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

And contrary to the defeatist rhetoric you may have heard from discouraged conservatives, the ACLU says that we religious conservatives are terrifyingly close to achieving our objectives. The letter urges recipients to join the ACLU "while there is still time" because Christians may radically change America "over the next few years."

From Glasser's mouth to God's ears.

Like most fundraising appeals, the ACLU's letter is heavy on the drama and overstates the case more than a little. And, of course, it misrepresents the motives of Christians at every possible turn.

But when you cut through the histrionics, it's clear the ACLU and its secularist allies are running scared. They see evidence of a cultural backlash against the secularist liberalism that they and their allies in the courts have tried to impose on Americans.

But you don't need the ACLU to tell you that the culture wars are far from over. Over the past few months, I've told you about how Christians in Alabama and South Carolina defeated the gambling lobby. I've told you about how Breakpoint listeners got Amazon.com to stop selling a book promoting pedophilia.

No wonder the ACLU is nervous. They read the signs Of the times as well as we do.

Well, the ACLU letter, despite its outrageous tone, serves a very good purpose -- it reminds us that any talk of surrender in the culture wars is premature. Our neighbors are beginning to see the damage wrought on our culture by the very brand of secular liberalism peddled by the ACLU. And they don't like it.

It has fortified my resolve.

That's why I'm glad I got that fundraising letter from the ACLU. No, I didn't send them a contribution. But I just might drop them a "thank you" note.

___________________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Rev. Timothy Bonney wrote, "The problem is that prayer, religion, and the Bible are not in American homes and families."

True enough, but not the whole picture.

A big part of why these are no longer in American homes is because the CHURCH lost its grasp on biblical truth (thanks in no small part to numerous seminaries which preceded the churches in their failure to guard the things entrusted to them). Many have proven unfaithful with the things with which they have been entrusted. Woe is them when the time finally comes to give an account. Lost churches have led to lost families, leading, in turn, to a society adrift. (And yes, as Bob asserts, in many places attitudes and even policies of hostility toward Christianity have developed.)

How long will God allow this drift away from righteousness before He judges this nation?

Some say our nation's further drift into wickedness and unrighteousness IS the judgment of God -- the withdrawal of His blessing, His grace, His righteousness -- our just rewards as well as the natural consequence for turning from Him. Watch network TV for several nights in a row, talk to teens in public school, chat with your unsaved neighbors and coworkers under age 35 (let alone read the papers and watch the news!) and see if it isn't so. Let's face it, apart from a mighty move of the Spirit, America is a spiritually hurting land (contrary stats from Barna notwithstanding). Even many of the churches which call themselves "evangelical" are simply pragmatic, poll-driven consumers of the next market-driven fad.

Sadly, it seems the spiritual depth of the average American "Christian" isn't much deeper than his CD of "Andy Griffith's Favorite Hymns." The average American Christian is much more American than he is Christian. And the Church owns much of the blame.

Say what you will about the Puritans, but they were a people with a truly biblical world view who saw every aspect of their lives as being lived out before the face of God. I'm not advocating a government run by the church. But I think there's something to be said for a society in which the average ten-year old can give you a fairly good explanation of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Given a choice between the convictions of the average Puritan family and those of today's average American "Christian" family, I'd take the Puritan convictions hands down.

Why the difference? Probably many factors, but none more important than the Puritan pursuit of consistent submission to the authority of the Word of God. The preachers preached without compromise and the Spirit blessed it in the lives of the people. The church leaders took their cues from Scripture, rather than from the philosophies of the world -- the "authorities" on which so many church leaders lean today. In many pulpits it seems only those teachings which are substantiated by scientific research and endorsed by contemporary thought get any attention. Truly biblical thinking is vanishing, not only from our society, but from our churches as well.

A biblical church is a powerful church. A worldly church is a weak church. Only a biblical church can speak into the world with Spirit-endued, life-changing power. The compromised, worldly church cannot do this because it is the same as the world: fleshly and futile in its thinking (though it pays lip service to the Scriptures in honor of the One who may exist somewhere -- if only we could know). In its good intentions to be "relevant," the church often ceases to be worth listening to. It fails to remember (or believe) that simply speaking the Word of God to the world and applying the Word of God in the world IS relevant, because it is the Word of GOD.

Say what you want about Lindsell [the writer of "The Battle For the Bible], but he was right about the slippery slope one climbs onto when one jettison's submission to the utter authority of God's Word (define it as inerrancy, infallibility, or however). Compromise the Word of God and you lose everything.

America is a godless nation because that's where its churches have led it. ... Many in our ranks still seek to reach out to the spiritual needs of others by drawing from "broken cisterns that can hold no water." By effectively denying the Word of God, they have lost their attachment to the God of the Word. They are thus unable to offer the world to drink of Him who is "the fountain of living waters." Instead they offer the world more of its own, making disciples who denigrate biblical faith and mock holiness. How many ... churches do you know that fear God?

Barry Pierce

First Baptist Church

Leominster, Massachusetts

*

RIGHT ... AND LEFT

Everywhere there is signs of culture war. It is being fought in the halls of Congress, in the media, and in the churches of America. Increasingly it is being fought from citadels with walls so high that neither side can see the other.

On one side are the People for the American Way; on the other side is the Christian Coalition. Donahue and Limbaugh fire tired bromides across a widening no-man's land, although their broadsides seldom clear their own ramparts. Instead, they rain down dangerously among their own supporters. Occasionally culture war is not a metaphor; a pro-lifer murders an abortionist.

Everywhere we see polarization, a civilization with two souls that despise each other. We are Siamese twins spitting, scratching, clawing, and screaming at each other. We are a culture drawn and quartering itself.

On one side are those loosely called the Right, who believe in absolute truth. They insist that we must stand for something, that right and wrong exist, that choices matter, and that there are values to be defended and compromises that cannot be made. On the other hand are those who believe that tolerance not truth is society's ultimate virtue. Call them the Left. They argue for pluralism and are skeptical of all truth claims, settling instead for opinionated relativism.

Increasingly thoughtful observers must lament what they see. M. Scott Peck in his latest book dreams of A World Waiting to Be Born and subtitles it "Civility Rediscovered." Robert Hughes, distinguished art critic of Time, makes much the same point in this year's Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America. Charles Colson in an editorial in Christianity Today urges Christians to cool their incendiary rhetoric which only confirms the worst stereotypes of us.

Meanwhile, the twins keep slapping each other in the face.

Of course, the Right is right. Christians believe in truth, in absolute truth. Right and wrong exist. They can (with care) be differentiated. And the choice matters immensely. Part of that absolute truth, however, is tolerance--the need of flawed, fragile, non-genius folks like us to extend to others mercy, love and forgiveness. And this the Right sometimes forgets. . . .

Mercy leads to truth. The truth is mercy. They belong together. Separated, they damage us. Truth cannot remain the unchallenged monopoly of the Right, and tolerance cannot remain the unchallenged monopoly of the Left. And if we could just remember this, the forces of moral relativism would have no bromides left to fire. -- Dale Pauls; Stamford, CT

In 1516, Sir Thomas More wrote about a perfect society on an imaginary island off the coast of South America. He called the place Utopia.

Its people lived in 54 identical towns. They gardened, devoted their spare time to learning, and dressed only in black. Once a month, all wives had to kneel in front of their husbands and beg forgiveness.

Early socialists were called Utopians and -- over the years -- others had visions of a perfect world, including the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. During the 1970s, they persecuted anyone who didn't fit into their communistic utopia. Offences included asking questions, or listening to the wrong kind of music.

Sadly, we have a few Utopians in the church, too: people who decide what perfection looks like and insist that everyone share the view. Though their intentions are good, they suffer from utopia myopia: their idea of the ideal is flawed and near-sighted.

Their utopia almost always embraces conformity and uniformity. Diversity is equated with perversity. While no one would argue the need for agreement on the Gospel and the basic building blocks of our faith, the utopians go too far. In their well-ordered world, the Christian walk is lock-step. We all live in identical churches, learning the same thing in the same way at the same time with no regard for individual needs and circumstances. We look the same and like the same things. Learning is encouraged, provided we all come to the same preconceived conclusions. Asking questions or even preferring the wrong music can land you in trouble.

In Ephesians 4, Paul stresses the oneness of our church, Spirit and hope, our faith, Lord, baptism and Father (v. 4-6). But then he paints a beautiful picture of how God uses our uniqueness and individuality to equip the church, preparing her for service and maturity. Each of us contributes in a different way through a rich array of gifts from the Holy Spirit. We're held together by Christ, not by anyone else's unofficial creed. “From Him, the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” (v. 16). That work will never be done perfectly. In our service and in our sin, we'll always need the grace of God. We're fallible people in a flawed world.

Even Sir Thomas More knew where to find Utopia in this life. When he coined the name, he took it from a Greek phrase meaning “No place”. The church could take a lesson. Perfection is found in no place but His place, and we're not there yet.

__________

Rick Gamble, published in Cross Current, Brantford, ON, Canada. Publish at will.

*

The guy had been shipwrecked years before and had never lived alone on this desert island. One day he was excited to see a ship off-shore which had seen his signal flag in the palm tree. A small dinghy came ashore with one occupant. The fellow rowing it handed the marooned sailor a bundle of newspapers and told him, "The captain sends you these papers and suggests you read them before you decide whether you want to be rescued."

________

Hoover Rupert, WHY DIDN'T NOAH SWAT BOTH MOSQUITOES? (Lima, OH: CSS Publishing Co. Inc., 1994), p. 89

"The great problem confronting us today is that we have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live. We have allowed our civilization to outrun our culture, and so we are in the danger now of ending up with guided missiles in the hands of misguided men."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), civil rights leader, B&P 1/15/03

"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects."

-- Herman Melville (1819-1891), writer, B&P 1/15/03

The U. S. Senate announced this week that it will delay considering some parts of the President's faith-based initiatives. That's because of a controversy over federal funding, and because of objections from both liberal and conservative groups. But in all the debate and controversy, let's be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

When President Bush was Governor of Texas, he asked me what his state could do to help our work in the prisons. I said, "Do no harm" -- the first tenet of the Hippocratic Oath. The most important thing, I said, is to keep the bureaucrats from preventing us from doing our job. Well, that's exactly what he did. And he went a step further: He gave us permission to open the first Christian prison -- one that we still run in Texas today.

Clearing the way for ministries to do their work is one of the President's major goals, and that's important regardless of the funding question. When Mother Teresa came to New York a few years ago, she wanted to open a homeless shelter. But, the state insisted that she build an elevator. Mother Teresa chose not to use scarce funds that way, and therefore walked away from the deal -- a great loss to New York.

The President is promising to end the red tape -- and I say, "Right on." He also wants to give tax credits to all taxpayers, not just those who itemize deductions. Good! We ought to be supporting this.

But the President's proposal has done something else. It has focused attention on the power of faith to bring healing to our communities. And we ought to take advantage of the controversy and do what we as the Church do best.

I saw how important this kind of witness can be just a few days ago when I was in Kansas. I was there to dedicate our new InnerChange facility, in Winfield -- our third Christian prison in this country. I spoke that morning at the Governor's Prayer Breakfast in the capitol, Topeka. There were 1,500 people present. It was a great event, but it was just what you would expect: a civic event, a celebration with prayers and speeches.

But late that afternoon, as the Governor, Sen. Sam Brownback, and the legislative leadership accompanied me to the prison, we saw something far more powerful than a hundred prayer breakfasts. At the dedication service at the prison, Michael Smith gave his testimony. A four-time loser who, in one stint had spent two years in maximum security isolation, Michael told how Prison Fellowship had ministered to him and how his life had been changed through Jesus Christ. He told of his experience in the InnerChange Prison. In fact, they were so important to him that he delayed his parole in order to finish the entire course. It was a moving testimony.

When I glanced over at the Governor and other state officials -- the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader -- their eyes were moist. That's the power of faith. That's what happens when Christians serve "the least of these." No one can deny the reality of a changed life.

So, let's take advantage of all the attention being focussed on faith-based solutions -- and yes, all the controversy over federal funding. And let's do what we ought to be doing anyway, with or without government encouragement. Let's do the Gospel and let the world see it, just as the top officials of Kansas saw it that day in a dreary Kansas prison. What they saw is real power: the power of the risen Christ.

_____________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

"The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice."

Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948)

Indian leader

Cited in BITS & PIECES

*

Ten years ago this month, the first Breakpoint radio broadcast hit the airwaves on ninety radio stations. At the time, almost all programming on Christian radio was devotional in nature. We wondered: Would Christians listen to a hard-hitting, biblically based critique of current events and issues?

Some of the professionals told us it wouldn't work -- that we would be bucking the tide to talk about something so esoteric as a "Christian worldview."

But we felt God's conviction, and, with the help of a few key donors, the ministry of BreakPoint radio was launched. With every commentary, we tried to help listeners think biblically about the world -- to build a grid of truth through which to sift and expose the distortions of our culture. Daily, we urged listeners to use these worldview lessons to impact the culture around them for Jesus Christ.

Now, ten years later, we know the experts were wrong. BreakPoint is heard on more than 1,000 broadcast outlets across the nation with a listening audience of more than five million people. Everywhere I go, people tell me how much they enjoy and use our material -- parents who listen along with their kids, teachers who use the commentaries in the classroom. Even congressmen and senators listen every day so as Christians they can better understand and deal with today's issues.

Over the years, letters and e-mails from listeners convinced us that Christians truly want the tools with which to challenge the secular culture and advance the truth of Christ. For instance, one mother used BreakPoint material to challenge the inaccurate teachings at her daughter's school -- and ended up being asked to join the school's curriculum committee. Others wrote to say that they'd gotten involved in prison ministry.

Two years ago, when we held our first worldview conference in Colorado Springs, hundreds of BreakPoint listeners came to immerse themselves in Christian worldview thinking. Our second conference in Chicago this June attracted nearly five hundred people.

Students who came to the conference from Canada and told me how they use BreakPoint in their weekly Bible studies. A New Zealander said that he heard about the conference on the Internet; he promised that next time he would bring with him a whole boatload of people from New Zealand.

Now even with all the gains we've made this past decade, there's still so much more to do. We hope and pray that this great awakening will spread, much like the one begun by one of my heroes, William Wilberforce. In the eighteenth century, Wilberforce not only led the fight in England to end slavery, he also reformed England's morals.

Wilberforce argued in a time of moral decay that the only hope for England rested in recapturing biblical principles and the shared morality that flowed from them. And I'm convinced that this is our only hope in this time in our culture.

That's why the work of BreakPoint equipping people across this country is so very important. I'm encouraged that already this movement has all the signs of a genuine God-inspired awakening among people -- it's His movement, not ours.

And that's why, as we celebrate our tenth anniversary, I want to thank you for standing with us -- for challenging those in your sphere of influence with the truth of the biblical revelation.

And may God continue -- through the work of all of us -- to renew this culture for His glory.

_________________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

The year 1588 is often considered a turning point in world history. It was during that year that the vast Spanish Armada of 130 ships sailed to England to try to capture the island kingdom for Spain's Catholic monarch, Philip II. The English attributed the failure of the invasion to a storm raised by divine Providence. The defeat of Spain's fleet enabled England to gain superiority of the seas and enhanced her ability to establish colonies in America. The English felt God had chosen their land for greatness in the future.

1588 was also the year John Winthrop was born in Suffolk, England. Winthrop would become one of the leaders in expanding England's empire in America; more importantly, he was an important instrument in establishing Christian consciousness in the new world.

John Winthrop was the only son of Anne and Adam Winthrop, lord of the manor of Groton. The family estate had formerly been the Abby of Bury St. Edmunds, one of the abbeys offered for sale when Henry VIII confiscated all the monasteries in England. John Winthrop's great-grandfather had bought the land, and the family had increased its wealth from the making and trading of cloth.

A PURITAN FAMILY

The Winthrops had strong Puritan leanings; they wanted the Church of England to be rid of any ritual or ceremony that did not have the authority of the Bible. Even as a boy, John Winthrop had a sincere devotion to God and considered becoming a minister. Although he finally chose to follow his father in trade and succeed him as lord of the family estate of Groton Manor, Winthrop never ceased to seek to honor God in all of his undertakings.

While continuing to oversee his manorial lands, Winthrop studied law at Grey's Inn in London. As an attorney, his legal duties often brought him to London on business. The immorality and degeneracy of the city disturbed Winthrop, and, with several others, he published "Common Grievances Groaning for Reformation." Winthrop, along with many other Puritans, was intent on reforming English society. As the decade of the 1620's wore on, however, the religious and political situation in England worsened. King Charles I was determined to rule as an absolute monarch and not at all in sympathy with Puritan goals. Persecution of the Puritans increased, and many thought of emigrating. John Winthrop thought of going to Ireland, but by 1629 a group of Puritans had formed the Massachusetts Bay Company to begin settlement in America. John Winthrop was elected governor of the Company, and within a short period of time he had enlisted 700 colonists for the new settlement. He organized 11 ships with their sailors and officers, arranged for provisions and supplies for the colony, and made certain there were enough skilled craftsmen and laborers for the colony's development.

WHY DID THEY COME?

When the Massachusetts Bay colonists sailed for America on March 22, 1630, Winthrop and his fellow Puritans left behind their patriarchal homes and financial security for an unknown American wilderness. In "A Model of Christian Charity," a sermon Winthrop preached during the voyage to America, the Massachusetts governor emphasized that the purpose of their going to America was to increase the body of Christ and to preserve themselves and their children from the corruption of this evil world. The colonists had made a covenant together to obey the commandments of God in their enterprise, and the Lord would surely bless them in their new land if they continued to follow Him. If they maintained Christian unity, Winthrop was certain the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us as his own people...when he shall make us a praise and a glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantations: the Lord make it like that of New England: for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.

Winthrop's imagery of the model Christian society as a city on a hill, taken from Matthew 5:14, became a motif that has inspired American literary and political thought into the twentieth century. From Winthrop and the Puritans, America inherited the idea that in some way this land was to be an example and beacon of light to the rest of the world.

During the 1630's, over 55,000 Englishmen fled to America. Half of these settled in New England, and Winthrop wrote in his journal that "Godly people in New England began now to apprehend a special hand of God in raising this plantation." Winthrop devoted the last two decades of his life to establishing the Massachusetts Colony. He was a pivotal figure in New England's critical early decades.

AN AMERICAN NEHEMIAH

A later American Puritan, Cotton Mather, called John Winthrop an "American Nehemiah." Like Nehemiah, Winthrop left behind positions of wealth and influence to unselfishly share the difficulties of his fellow colonists in establishing a godly society. Both Winthrop and Nehemiah were men of prayer who sought the Lord's blessings for their enterprises and thanked Him with true humility for all their successes.

*